RIGHT TO SUE

Evening Post, Volume C, Issue 86, 8 October 1920, Page 11

RIGHT TO SUE

AFTER PLAINTIFF'S DEATH CASE FOB COURT OF APPEAL. An interesting question in law was bufore the Court of Appeal on , Wednesday as to whether, if the original plaiii--tiffi in a claim for compensation undur the Workers' Compensation. Act died_b«'fore the hearing of the claim, the administrator of the plaintiff's estate would be entitled to sue for compensation even if he were not a dependent of the plaintiff. The claim was by George Bodell, .of Wellington, against William Cable ■md Co., Ltd. The proceedings were commenced in the Arbitration Court beifore the case was referred to the Court of Appeal in aooordance with the provisions of section 59 of trie Industrial Conciliation and Ai-bitration Amendment Act, 1908. ■ ■ •

On the Bench on Wednesday were their Honours the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout}, Mr. Justice Edwards, Mr. Justice Cooper, Mr. Justice Chapman, and Mi". Justice Herdman. Mr. P. J. O'Regan appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. 0. H. Treadwcll for the defendant.

The appellant was trie father-in-law of Thomas Henry WMtley, of Wellington, metal-worker, who was killed by accident "in November last while employed by the defendants in effecting fegt&ire on the s.s. Kia Ora. The widow ot the deceased took action against the Shaw, Savill, and Albion Company, owners of the Kia Ora, but died a month later, before the hearing '.•ommencect, leaving no family. Tho question was whether 'isr father, th« appellant, was entitled to proceed in the prosecution of the r,saim against the present defendants for "ornponsation. It was admitted that he •.'as never at any time dependent on the Aecfcased Thomas Whitley. ■ Mr. O'Regan eubmitted that there was i vested right to be considered, which ie claimed acci'iied' to the plaintiff after 'ill's. Whitley's death. He quoted a case v which a- miner wa,s kilkd in an Etigsh colliery and his only relative died efore making any claim. Litigation illowed, and the House of Lords «uported the claim of other interested ■arties, allowing compensation. It was eld that liability existed as from the ;me of injury as a debt, and preferable, nong debts, and a'present right vested i the dependent, although the depen'ent made no claim.

Mr. Treadwell disputed the right of 'Jodell to make the claim. The right of otion abated with.the death of Mrs. Vhitley, as it was a purely personal ction.. The present plaintiff was not dmittedly a dependent of Whitley, and Herefore he had. no right to make any 'aim. ■

The Court reserved its decision,